[NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Top-level Domains for Private Internets IETF draft

Wed Jul 1 18:35:07 UTC 2020

SSAC rarely imposes a deadline on its work.  It’s preference is 
thorough and complete, i.e., when the work is done it will be released, 
and not before.

Nonetheless, it has allowed itself to be influenced by external 
deadlines.  Reach out to Rod Rasmussen as chair if you have a concern 
and I’m sure he’ll do his best to help you get a response to your 
concern.

Jim
co-Chair NCAP
SSAC Member

On 30 Jun 2020, at 15:27, Jim Prendergast wrote:

> I’m not sure this was ever answered.  When will the SSAC feedback be 
> released?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim Prendergast
> The Galway Strategy Group
> +1 202-285-3699
>
> From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jim 
> Prendergast
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 3:54 PM
> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; David Conrad 
> <david.conrad at icann.org>; Jeff Schmidt <jschmidt at jasadvisors.com>
> Cc: ncap-discuss at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Top-level Domains for Private 
> Internets IETF draft
>
> Is there an ETA on the SSAC feedback?
>
> Jim Prendergast
> The Galway Strategy Group
> +1 202-285-3699
>
> From: NCAP-Discuss 
> <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> 
> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 3:04 PM
> To: David Conrad 
> <david.conrad at icann.org<mailto:david.conrad at icann.org>>; Jeff Schmidt 
> <jschmidt at jasadvisors.com<mailto:jschmidt at jasadvisors.com>>
> Cc: ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Top-level Domains for Private 
> Internets IETF draft
>
> David,
>
> To be clear, I have sent the IETF proposal to the SubPro Working Group 
> as well as to the Registries SG.  I have asked some Councilors that it 
> be presented to the GNSO Council, but perhaps that can be done by you. 
>   I don’t think Tech Day alone suffices since that makes this 
> proposal sound more like a purely technical proposal when it is not.  
> In fact, I believe the policy aspects are greater than any purely 
> operational/technical purpose.  It would also be interesting to get 
> the SSAC feedback on this proposal.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jeff Neuman
> Senior Vice President
> Com Laude | Valideus
> D: +1.703.635.7514
> E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>
> From: NCAP-Discuss 
> <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> 
> On Behalf Of David Conrad
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 2:41 PM
> To: Jeff Schmidt 
> <jschmidt at jasadvisors.com<mailto:jschmidt at jasadvisors.com>>
> Cc: ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Top-level Domains for Private 
> Internets IETF draft
>
> Jeff,
>
> On Jun 18, 2020, at 9:36 AM, Jeff Schmidt via NCAP-Discuss 
> <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>> wrote:
> The reason we have this problem is we (collectively, the technical 
> community) have done a poor job communicating the “right” way to 
> use private DNS namespaces.  We did a good job with 1918/IP; we did a 
> bad job with DNS.  So, folks made it up themselves, and now we’re 
> here.
>
> Having been part of the discussions that led up to RFC 1918, it feels 
> like we’re having the same discussions, just 25 years later and with 
> a different resource.  What led up to RFC 1918 was a pretty high 
> calorie food fight (IMHO)...
>
> Marketers will tell you “meet your customers where they are.”  
> People expect this to be in a simple and clear RFC, just like 1918.  
> Tell me what to do and I’ll do it.  If we want to actually solve the 
> problem, it should be a simple and clear RFC.  People will follow 
> that.  Debating the correct policy forum for communicating this for 
> literally years and then burying it in some obscure ICANN or GNSO 
> document (organizations exactly no one outside of our community have 
> actually heard of) won’t solve the problem for the masses.
>
> It might be an interesting question as to which venue (IETF or ICANN) 
> has greater reach, however I don’t believe it is either/or, nor do I 
> believe that was the intent of Roy or Ed to pick one over the other. I 
> believe Roy posted into the IETF because that, at least traditionally, 
> has been where DNS operational discussions were held. Indeed, Roy has 
> already agreed to discuss the Internet Draft during the ICANN 68 Tech 
> Day and there was a lively discussion in the IETF DNSOP working group.
>
> However, as opposed to the IETF, there isn’t (at least in my mind) a 
> clear venue in ICANN in which to publish ideas for discussion/debate. 
> I had asked Jeff Neuman and would ask you and others: where/how should 
> Roy and Ed publish his idea in the ICANN Community to generate 
> discussion?
>
> In Section 5, instead of “This document does not recommend any 
> specific ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 user-assigned code as a private use, but 
> instead [offers 12 pages of dense technobabble no one will care 
> about]” it should say “Use .ZZ”  Just like 1918.
>
> As mentioned privately, RFC 1918 presented 3 options in terms of 
> private use prefixes.  Roy's and Ed’s draft makes use of a third 
> party (ISO 3166) to make the definition of a set of domains that can 
> be used for private use Someone Else’s Problem.  That Someone Else 
> has already selected a set of domains (42 of them). I personally 
> don’t think the bike shedding that will result in trying to select 
> one of those 42 for the officially sanctioned “private use” domain 
> will come to a consensus and don’t really see the point in trying.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
> ________________________________
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the 
> intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in 
> any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have 
> received this message in error, please return it to the sender 
> (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and 
> immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude 
> Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your 
> responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any 
> attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for 
> statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf 
> of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group 
> includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England 
> and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 
> Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a 
> company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 
> and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN 
> England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company 
> number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, 
> Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA 
> and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, 
> McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company 
> registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 
> Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see 
> www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

> _______________________________________________
> NCAP-Discuss mailing list
> NCAP-Discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of 
> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of 
> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman 
> link above to change your membership status or configuration, 
> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling 
> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20200701/11edf0a9/attachment.html>